Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ
1. We have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the Appellant - writ petitioner on different aspects of this appeal instituted against the judgment
of the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the cancellation of transfer of land which was under lease granted by the Government. We have
also heard the learned Additional Advocate General.
2. The learned Single Judge has decided two issues against the Appellant on the basis of materials and admitted facts. The land was leased by the
Government to a particular person. His legal representative transferred that land to the Appellant - Tilaknath. Admittedly, that transfer was in violation
of the condition of the grant of lease to the effect that any transfer without prior permission of the Collector would be void. The second aspect of the
case is that the land involved in this litigation is admittedly recorded as ""Bade Jhad Ka Jangal"". The said land could not have been transferred through
lease by the Government even to the so called predecessor of the Appellant. This is the effect of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 as interpreted and laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others (1997) 2 SCC 267
which position has been followed in later precedents handed down by the Apex Court as well.
3. Looking at the quality of findings in the impugned judgment and the basic facts and materials as well as the judicial precedents referred to by the
learned Single Judge, we do not find our way to hold that the impugned judgment is vitiated on any count warranting interference through an intra
Court appeal. Hence, this writ appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.
